Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

9. THE 1903 PROGRAMME AND ITS LIQUIDATORS

The  Minutes of the 1903 Congress, at which the Programme of the Russian
Marxists was adopted, have become a great rarity, and the vast majority of
the active members of the working-class movement today are unacquainted
with the motives underlying the various points (the more so since not all
the literature relating to it enjoys the blessings of legality...). It is
therefore necessary to analyse the debate that took place at the 1903
Congress on the question under discussion.

Let  us state first of all that however meagre the Russian
Social-Democratic literature on the “right of nations to
self-determination” may be, it nevertheless shows clearly that this right
has always been understood to mean the right to secession. The Semkovskys,
Liebmans and Yurkeviches who doubt this and declare that §9 is
“vague”, etc., do so only because of their sheer ignorance or
carelessness. As far back as 1902, Plekhanov, inZarya, defended
“the right to self-determination” in the draft programme, and wrote that
this demand, while not obligatory upon bourgeois democrats, was
“obligatory upon Social-Democrats”. “If we were to for got it or
hesitate, to advance it,” Plekhanov wrote, “for fear ofoffending the national prejudices of our fellow-countrymen of Great-Russian
nationality, the call ... ‘workers of all countries, unite!’ would be a
shameful lie on our
lips....”[3]

This  is a very apt description of the fundamental argument in favour of
the point under consideration; so apt that it is not surprising that the
“anythingarian” critics of our programme have been timidly avoiding
it. The abandonment of this point, no matter for what motives, isactuallya “shameful” concession toGreat-Russiannationalism. But why Great-Russian, when it is a question of the right ofallnations to self-determination? Because it refers to secessionfromthe Great Russians. The interests of theunity of the
proletarians, the interests of their class solidarity call for
recognition of the right ofnations to secede—that is what
Plekhanov admitted twelve years ago in the words quoted above. Had our
opportunists given thought to this they would probably not have talked so
much nonsense about self-determination.

At  the 1903 Congress, which adopted the draft programme that Plekhanov
advocated, the main work was done by theProgramme
Commission. Unfortunately no Minutes of its proceedings were kept;
they would have been particularly interesting on this point, for it wasonlyin the Commission that the representatives of the Polish
Social-Democrats, Warszawski and Hanecki, tried to defend their views and
to dispute “recognition of the right to self-determination”. Any reader
who goes to the trouble of comparing their arguments (set forth in the
speech by Warszawski and the statement by him and Hanecki, pp. 134–36 and
388–90 of the Congress Minutes) with those which Rosa Luxemburg advanced
in her Polish article, which we have analysed, will find them identical.

How  were these arguments treated by the Programme Commission of the
Second Congress, where Plekhanov, more than anyone else, spoke against the
Polish Marxists? They were mercilessly ridiculed! The absurdity of
proposing to the Marxists ofRussiathat they should reject the
recognition of the right of nations to self-determination was demonstrated
so plainly and clearly that the Polish Marxistsdid not even venture to
repeat their arguments at the plenary meeting of the Congress! They
left the Congress, convinced of thehopelessness of their case at the supreme assembly of
Marxists—Great-Russian, Jewish, Georgian, and Armenian.

Needless  to say, this historic episode is of very great importance to
everyone seriously interested inhis ownprogramme. The fact that
the Polish Marxists’ arguments were completely defeated at the Programme
Commission of the Congress, and that the Polish Marxists gave up the
attempt to defend their views at the plenary meeting of the Congress is
very significant. No wonder Rosa Luxemburg maintained a “modest” silence
about it in her article in 1908—the recollection of the Congress must
have been too unpleasant!  She also kept quiet about the ridiculously inept
proposal made by Warszawski and Hanecki in 1903, on behalf of all Polish
Marxists, to “amend” §9 of the Programme, a proposal which neither
Rosa Luxemburg nor the other Polish Social-Democrats have ventured (or will
ever venture) to repeat.

But  although Rosa Luxemburg, concealing her defeat in 1903, has
maintained silence over these facts, those who take an interest in the
history of their Party will make it their business to ascertain them and
give thought to their significance.

On  leaving the 1903 Congress, Rosa Luxemburg’s friends submitted the
following statement:

“We  propose that Clause 7 [now Clause 9] of the draft
   programme read as follows: § 7.Institutions guaranteeing full
   freedom of cultural development to all nations incorporated in the
   state.” (P. 390 of the Minutes.)

“We  propose that Clause 7 [now Clause 9] of the draft
   programme read as follows: § 7.Institutions guaranteeing full
   freedom of cultural development to all nations incorporated in the
   state.” (P. 390 of the Minutes.)

Thus,  the Polish Marxists at that time put forward views on the
national question that were so vague thatinstead ofself-determination they practically proposed the notorious
“cultural-national autonomy”, only under another name!

This  sounds almost incredible, but unfortunately it is a fact. At the
Congress itself, attended though it was by five Bundists with five votes
and three Caucasians with six votes, without counting Kostrov’s
cousultative voice,not a singlevote was cast for therejectionof the clause about self-determination. Three votes were
cast for the proposal to add “cultural-national autonomy” to this clause
(in favour of Goldblatt’s formula: “the establishment of institutions
guaranteeing the nations full freedom of cultural development”)and four votes for Lieber’s formula (“the right of nations to freedom in
their cultural development”).

Now  that a Russian liberal party—the Constitutional-Democratic
Party—has appeared on the scene, we know that initsprogramme
the political self-determination of nations has been replaced by “cultural
self-determination”. Rosa Luxemburg’s Polish friends, therefore, were
“combating” the nationalism of the P.S.P., and, did it so
successfully that they proposed the substitution of aliberalprogramme for the Marxist programme! And in the same breath they accused
our programme of being opportunist; no wonder this accusation was received
with laughter by the Programme Commission of the Second Congress!

How  was “self-determination” understood by the delegates to the
Second Congress, of whom, as we have seen,not onewas opposed to
“self-determination of nations”?

The  following three extracts from the Minutes provide the answer:

“Martynovis of the opinion that the term
‘self-determination’ should not be given a broad interpretation; it merely
means the right of a nation to establish itself as a separate polity, not
regional self-government” (p. 171). Martynov was a member of the Programme
Commission, in which the arguments of Rosa Luxemburg’s friends were
repudiated and ridiculed. Martynov was then an Economist in his views, and
a violent opponent ofIskra;had he expressed an opinion that was
not shared by the majority of the Programme Commission he would certainly
have been repudiated.

Bundist  Goldblatt was the first to speak when the Congress, after the
Commission had finished its work, discussed §8 (the present Clause 9)
of the Programme.

“No  objections can he raised to the ‘right to
   self-determination’. When a nation is fighting for independence, that
   should not he opposed. If Poland refuses to enter into lawful marriage with
   Russia, she should not be interfered with, as Plekhanov put it. I agree
   with this opinion within these limits” (pp. 175–76).

“No  objections can he raised to the ‘right to
   self-determination’. When a nation is fighting for independence, that
   should not he opposed. If Poland refuses to enter into lawful marriage with
   Russia, she should not be interfered with, as Plekhanov put it. I agree
   with this opinion within these limits” (pp. 175–76).

Plekhanov  had not spoken on this subject at all at the plenary meeting
of the Congress. Goldblatt was referring to what Plekhanov had said at the
Programme Commission, where the “right to self-determination” had been
explainedin a simple yet detailed manner to mean the right to secession. Lieber, who
spoke after Goldblatt, remarked:

“Of  course, if any nationality finds that it cannot live
   within the frontiers of Russia, thePartywill not place any
   obstacles in its way” (p. 176).

“Of  course, if any nationality finds that it cannot live
   within the frontiers of Russia, thePartywill not place any
   obstacles in its way” (p. 176).

The  reader will see that at the Second Congress of the Party, which
adopted the programme, it was unanimously understood that
self-determination meant “only” the right to secession. Even the Bundists
grasped this truth at the time, and it is only in our own deplorable times
of continued counter-revolution and all sorts of “apostasy” that we can
find people who, bold in their ignorance, declare that the programme is
“vague”. But before devoting time to these sorry would-be
Social-Democrats, let us first finish with the attitude of the Poles to the
programme.

They  came to the Second Congress (1903) declaring that unity was
necessary and imperative. But they left the Congress after their
“reverses” in the Programme Commission, and theirlast wordwas
a written statement, printed in the Minutes of the Congress, containing the
above-mentioned proposal tosubstitutecultural-national autonomy
for self-determination.

In  1906 the Polish Marxists joined the Party;neitherupon
joiningnorafterwards (at the Congress of 1907, the conferences
of 1907 and 1908, or the plenum of 1910)did they introducea
single proposal to amend §9 of the Russian Programme!

That  is a fact.

And,  despite all utterances and assurances, this fact definitely proves
that Rosa Luxemburg’s friends regarded the question as having been settled
by the debate at the Programme Commission of the Second Congress, as well
as by the decision of that Congress, and that they tacitly acknowledged
their mistake and corrected it by joining the Party in 1906, after they had
left the Congress in 1903, without a single attempt to raise the question
of amending §9 of the Programme throughPartychannels.

Rosa  Luxemburg’s article appeared over her signature in 1908—of
course, it never entered anyone’s head to deny Party publicists the right
to criticise the programme—and,sincethe Writing of this article,not a singleofficial body of the
Polish Marxists has raised the question of revising §9.

Trotsky  was therefore: rendering a great disservice to certain admirers
of Rosa Luxemburg when he wrote, on behalf of the editors ofBorba, in issue No. 2 of that publication (March 1914):

“The  Polish Marxists consider that ‘the right to
   national self-determination’ is entirely devoid of political content and
   should be deleted from the programme” (p. 25).

“The  Polish Marxists consider that ‘the right to
   national self-determination’ is entirely devoid of political content and
   should be deleted from the programme” (p. 25).

The  obliging Trotsky is more dangerous than an enemy! Trotsky could
producenoproof, except “private conversations” (i. e., simply
gossip, on which Trotsky always subsists), for classifying “Polish
Marxists” in general as supporters of every article by Rosa
Luxemburg. Trotsky presented the “Polish Marxists” as people devoid of
honour and conscience, incapable of respecting even their own convictions
and the programme of their Party. How obliging Trotsky is!

When,  in 1903, the representatives of the Polish Marxists walked out of
the Second Congressoverthe right to self-determination, Trotsky
could have said atthe timethat they regarded this right as
devoid of content and subject to deletion from the programme.

But  after that the Polish Marxistsjoinedthe Party whose
programme this was, and they have never introduced a motion to amend
				 it.[1]

Why  did Trotsky withhold these facts from the readers of his journal?
Only because it pays him to speculate on fomenting differences between the
Polish and the Russian opponents of liquidationism and to deceive the
Russian workers on the question of the programme.

Trotsky  has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of
Marxism. He always contrives to worm hisway into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one
side for the other. At the present moment he is in the company of the
Bundists and the liquidators. And these gentlemen do not stand on ceremony
where the Party is concerned.

Listen  to the Bundist Liebman.

“When,  fifteen years ago,” this gentleman writes, “the
   Russian Social-Democrats included the point about the right of every
   nationality to ‘self-determination’ in their programme, everyone [!] asked
   himself: What does this fashionable [!] term really mean? No answer was
   forthcoming [!]. This word was left [!] wrapped in mist. And indeed, at the
   time, it was difficult to dispel that mist. The moment had not come when
   this point could be made concrete—it was said—so let it remain wrapped
   in mist [!] for the time being and practice will show what content should
   he put into it.”

“When,  fifteen years ago,” this gentleman writes, “the
   Russian Social-Democrats included the point about the right of every
   nationality to ‘self-determination’ in their programme, everyone [!] asked
   himself: What does this fashionable [!] term really mean? No answer was
   forthcoming [!]. This word was left [!] wrapped in mist. And indeed, at the
   time, it was difficult to dispel that mist. The moment had not come when
   this point could be made concrete—it was said—so let it remain wrapped
   in mist [!] for the time being and practice will show what content should
   he put into it.”

Isn’t  it magnificent, the way this
“ragamuffin”[4]mocks at the Party programme?

And  why does he mock at it?

Because  he is an absolute ignoramus, who has never learnt anything or
even read any Party history, but merely happened to land in liquidationist
circles where going about in the nude is considered the “right” thing to
do as far as knowledge of the Party and everything it stands for is
concerned.

Pomyalovsky’s  seminary student boasts of having “spat into a barrel of
sauerkraut”.[5]The Bundist gentlemen have gone one better. They let
the Liebmans loose to spit publicly into their own barrel. What do the
Liebmans care about the fact that the International Congress has passed a
decision, that at the Congress of their own Party the representatives of
their own Bund proved that they were quite able (and what “severe”
critics and determined enemies ofIskrathey were!) to understand
the meaning of “self-determination” and were even in agreement with it?
And will it not be easier to liquidate the Party if the “Party
publicists” (no jokes, please!) treat its history and programme after the
fashion of the seminary student?

Here  is a second “ragamuffin”, Mr. Yurkevich ofDzvin. Mr. Yurkevich must have had the Minutes of the Second
Congress before him, because he quotes Plekhanov, as repeated by Goldblatt,
and shows that he is aware of the fact that self-determination can only
mean the right to secession. This, however, does not prevent him from
spreading slanderabout the Russian Marxists among the Ukrainian petty bourgeoisie, alleging
that they stand for the “state integrity” of Russia. (No. 7–8, 1913,
p. 83, etc.) Of course, the Yurkeviches could not have invented a better
method than such slander to alienate the Ukrainian democrats from the
Great-Russian democrats. And such alienation is in line with the entire
policy of the group ofDzvinpublicists who advocate theseparationof the Ukrainian workersin a specialnational
			    organisation![2]

It  is quite appropriate, of course, that a group of nationalist
philistines, who are engaged in splitting the ranks of the
proletariat—and objectively this is the role ofDzvin—should
disseminate such hopeless confusion on the national question. Needless to
say, the Yurkeviches and Liebmans, who are “terribly” offended when they
are called “near Party men”, do not say a word, not a single word, as to
howtheywould like the problem of the right to secede to be
settled in the programme.

But  here is the third and principal “ragamuffin”, Mr. Semkovsky, who,
addressing a Great-Russian audience through the columns of a liquidationist
newspaper, lashes at §9 of the Programme and at the same time declares
that “for certain reasons he does not approve of the proposal” to delete
this clause!

This  is incredible, but it is a fact.

In  August 1912, the liquidators’ conference raised the national
question officially. For eighteen months not a single article has appeared
on the question of §9, except the one written by Mr. Semkovsky. And in
this article the authorrepudiatesthe programme, “without
approving”, however, “forcertainreasons” (is this a secrecy
disease?) the proposal to amend it! We may be sure that it would be
difficult to find anywhere in the world similar examples of opportunism, or
even worse—renunciation of the Party, and a desire to liquidate it.

A  single example will suffice to show what Semkovsky’s arguments are
like:

“What  are we to do,” he writes, “if the Polish
   proletariat wants to fight side by side with the proletariat of all Russia
   within the framework of a single state, while the reactionary classes of
   Polish society, on the contrary, want to separate Poland from Russia and
   obtain a majority of votes in favour of secession by referendum? Should we,
   Russian Social-Democrats in the central parliament, vote together with our
   Polish comradesagainstsecession, or—in order not to violate
   the ‘right to self-determination’—voteforsecession?”
   (Novaya Rabochaya GazetaNo. 71.)

“What  are we to do,” he writes, “if the Polish
   proletariat wants to fight side by side with the proletariat of all Russia
   within the framework of a single state, while the reactionary classes of
   Polish society, on the contrary, want to separate Poland from Russia and
   obtain a majority of votes in favour of secession by referendum? Should we,
   Russian Social-Democrats in the central parliament, vote together with our
   Polish comradesagainstsecession, or—in order not to violate
   the ‘right to self-determination’—voteforsecession?”
   (Novaya Rabochaya GazetaNo. 71.)

From  this it is evident that Mr. Semkovsky does not even understand thepoint at issue! It did not occur to him that the right to
secession presupposes the settlement of the question by a parliament (Diet,
referendum, etc.) of thesecedingregion,notby a
central parliament.

The  childish perplexity over the question “What are we to do”, if
under democracy the majority are for reaction, serves to screen the real
and live issue whenboththe Purishkeviches and the Kokoshkins
consider the very idea of secession criminal! Perhaps the proletarians ofallRussia ought not to fight the Purishkeviches and the
Kokoshkins today, but should by-pass them and fight the reactionary classes
of Poland!

Such  is the sheer rubbish published in the liquidators’ organ of which
Mr. L. Martov is one of the ideological leaders, the selfsame L. Martov who
drafted the programme and spoke in favour of its adoption in 1903, and even
subsequently wrote in favour of the right to secede. Apparently L. Martov
is now arguing according to the rule:

No  clever man is needed there;Better send Read,And I shall wait and
   see.[6]

No  clever man is needed there;Better send Read,And I shall wait and
   see.[6]

He sends Read-Semkovsky along and allows our programme to be distorted,
and endlessly muddled up in a daily paper whose new readers are
unacquainted with it!

Yes.  Liquidationism has gone a long way—there are even very many
prominent ex-Social-Democrats who have not a trace of Party spirit left in
them.

Rosa  Luxemburg cannot, of course, be classed with the Liebmans,
Yurkeviches and Semkovskys, but the fact that it was this kind of people
who seized upon her error shows with particular clarity the opportunism she
has lapsed into.

[1]We  are informed that the Polish Marxists attended the Summer Conference
of the Russian Marxists in 1913 withonlya consultative voice and
did not vote at all on the right to self-determination (secession),
declaring their opposition to this right in general. Of course, they had a
perfect right to act the way they did, and, as hitherto, to agitate in
Poland against secession. But this is not quite what Trotsky said; for the
Polish Marxists did not demand the “deletion” of §9 “from the
programme”.  —Lenin

[2]See  particularly Mr. Yurkevich’s preface to Mr. Levinsky’s book
(written in Ukrainian)Outline of the Development of the Ukrainian
Working-Class Movement in Galicia, Kiev, 1914.  —Lenin

[3]Lenin  is quoting from G. V. Plekhanov’s article “The Draft Programme
of the Russian Social-Democratic Party” published inZaryaNo. 4,
1902.

Zarya—a Marxist scientific and political journal published
legally in Stuttgart in 1901–02 by the Editorial Board ofIskra. Altogether four numbers (three issues) ofZaryaappeared: No. 1 in April 1901 (actually on March 23, new style); No. 2–3
in December 1901, and No. 4 in August 1902. The aims of the publication
were set forth in the “Draft of a Declaration of the Editorial Board ofIskraandZarya” written by Lenin in Russia. (See
present edition, Vol. 4.) In 1902, during the disagreement and conflicts
that arose on the Editorial Board ofIskraandZarya,
Plekhanov proposed a plan for separating the newspaper from the journal
(withZaryaremaining under his editorship), but this proposal was
not accepted, and the two publications continued under a single editorial
board.

Zaryacriticised international and Russian revisionism, and
defended the theoretical principles of Marxism. The following articles by
Lenin were published in this journal: =

“Casual Notes”, “The Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of
Liberalism”, “The ‘Critics’ on the Agrarian Question” (the first four
chapters of “The Agrarian Question and the ‘Critics of Marx’\thinspace”),
“Review of Home Affairs”, and “The Agrarian Programme of Russian
Social-Democracy”, as well as Plekhanov’s articles “Criticism of Our
Critics. Part I. Mr. P. Struve in the Role of Critic of the Marxian Theory
of Social Development”, “Cant versus Kant, or the Testament of
Mr. Bernstein” and others.

[4]A  quotation from the sketch “Abroad” by the Russian satirist
Saltykov-Shchedrin.

[5]Lenin  quotes an expression fromSeminary Sketchesby the
Russian writer N. G. Pomyalovsky.

[6]Lenin  quotes the words of a Sevastopol soldiers’ song written by Leo
Tolstoy. The song is about the unsuccessful operation of the Russian troops
at the river Chornaya on August 4, 1855, during the Crimean War. In that
action General Read commanded two divisions.